|reply to ylen131 |
Re: A Right!
You might be able to argue that phone is a luxury, but it's considered a utility by Government in that is has be available just about anywhere in the U.S.
I think the crux of the debate is how necessary is it to put broadband in the level of importance that the Government should deem it necessary to have it just about everywhere. Corporations depend on it so in that arena the vote is yes.
You can also argue that a house is a luxury if you use the thought process that you currently are using. We have 10,000 homeless people in my city. Just because you can live with out something doesn't charictorize it as a luxury. Everything materalistic thing you posess would be a luxury with that arguement. A luxury would be something that you can do with-out, but get your goal completed. So a internet connection might be a luxury for somepeople, but those who are using mission critical applications, it is anything but a luxury.
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
Why don't we just call it a PITA and leave it at that?
bbandbratBig Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.UsPremium
|reply to SRFireside |
You're absolutely correct. The government considers a phone an essential service. Therefore it created the universal service fund, which we all pay, to fund services in hard to serve areas and for low income individuals. The Telcos are also required to provide what is known as "life line" services for individuals who request such a service.
Consider that at one point electricity was a luxury, now considered essential; telephones were a luxury, now considered essential; broadband will become essential. Although it can be argued that an individual can live without braodband today, the economy can not successfully compete without the opportunity for 100% broadband penetration to it's population. It is the opportunity that is essential today. Whether an individual makes use of the opportunity is an issue of personal choice.